Business and management

Higher education

iVy League

“THE first elite university to be launched in America in over a century.” Ben Nelson, who cut his entrepreneurial teeth as chief executive of Snapfish, a photo website, does not shy away from making big claims. But he has every reason to boast. On April 3rd Benchmark Capital announced that it will fund Minerva, which plans to welcome its first class of students in September 2014, to the tune of $25m—one of the biggest seed investments of a leading Silicon Valley venture firm ever. What is more, the new university's advisory board will be chaired by Larry Summers, a former president of Harvard University, and count among its members Bob Kerrey, a former senator and head of the New School in New York, and Pat Harker, president of the University of Delaware and a former dean of the Wharton School.

This is a brave moment to launch a for-profit university. There is much talk of a “bubble in higher education”—an over-expansion fuelled by the ready availability of student loans to pay for courses that often fail to lead to the lucrative careers promised in advertisements. And for-profit universities, many of which deliver more and more education online (as Minerva will do), have been widely criticized, including for low-standards and overly aggressive sales practices. Their shares have been targeted by well-known short-sellers. Mr Nelson insists that by aiming at the elite student market, Minerva will steer well away from such problems.

The presence of heavyweights of higher education on the board reflects the fact that Minerva is not aiming to displace incumbents, but rather to fill a gap they have left. “I don't want or need to disrupt Harvard. I care about the kid who should have got into Harvard but didn't,” says Mr Nelson. Currently, America's 30 or so elite universities turn away over 90% of applicants (the vast majority of whom meet the qualification standards) as the result of a process he describes as a “lottery”. In particular, Minerva is aiming to tap into the demand for an elite American education from the developing world's rising middle class—for the “children of a Wipro middle manager from India, or a Foxconn line operator from China,” in the words of Mr Nelson.

Minerva aspires to reinvent everything, from the business model and the curriculum to the way in which teaching is delivered. The plan is for admission standards to be higher than current Ivy League levels, and for courses to be tough enough for students to fail if they do not pull their weight (a rarity in American education, except in cases of extreme incompetence). The curriculum will focus on skills rather than traditional academic studies and be based on four pillars: critical thinking, use of data, understanding complex systems and leading through effective communication. The course content will be outsourced, drawing from what is readily available online and through a “Minerva Prize” competition to get leading educators to design classes. It will be delivered via the internet to classes of 25 students and a professor will then engage them in debate. Students will be located in several cities around the world, and be expected to move to a different location each year.

Minerva opted to be a for-profit university because “this is the best way to ensure it is financially sustainable,” says Mr Nelson. The seed money raised from Benchmark should be enough to enable the university to open, but another round of funding will be needed to complete the job. Assuming Minerva can get accredited as a university, which Mr Nelson says should be straightforward, the biggest challenge will be persuading the first students to sign up for what will be an untested course quite unlike anything currently on offer in American higher education.

The price will certainly help. Mr Nelson is confident that he will be able to deliver a top quality education for under $20,000 a year—less than half the price of attending an existing elite American university. The plan seems to have convinced Mr Summers, at least, judging by his comments. America “must succeed in providing a better education to more people at a lower cost,” he recently said, adding that, “as in every other domain, much of the impetus for change will come from new entrants.”

What exactly justifies a $20,000 a year course that is online. Colleges have many facilities that are serviced by people, whereas the Internet is serviced by faceless IT people, most of whom are working for a small salary. This isn't just for-profit, it's exploitation.
It raises a few issues:
Whether online education will be accepted by employers on a large-scale.
Originality- if they are sourcing content from available sources, what is to ensure quality standards.
Socialization- college isn't just about learning skills, it's about allowing people to break out of their shells and learn to be independent adults. A graduate from Minerva may be lacking in social skills if s/he spends four years learning from a computer.
I'd much rather Venture capital firms invest in early childhood education and improving the availability of reading materials in high schools, you have to strengthen the base if you want to create an educated population to service the jobs from which you make the most money.

Will they guarantee no tuition increase for 4 years for each entering class?

Distance learning is cost-saving. But face-to-face interaction with peers and professors is an invaluable part of a college education. We are too much of an Internet society as it is. Overconnected as it were. Yet more alone than ever - intellectually, socially, and interpersonally. All three - intellectual, social, interpersonal - are indispensible aspects of a full education.

Impressive Board. But sounds more like a shop than a university. And what about that LIBRARY? Perhaps I am too skeptical.

Many years ago (1969) in Britain, Harold Wilson initiated The Open University, using a mix of correspondence, radio and television materials backed up by summer schools (at orthodox universities) and weekly seminars. There were no qualification pre-requisits, fees were very low ad it was aimed at working adults.

It has been an outstanding success, with high standards and offering access to almost everyone prepared to make the commitment. Of course, it's a terribly socialistic concept. But it works, and has done so for over 50 years.

"The power of instruction is seldom of much efficacy except in those happy dispositions where it is almost superfluous." - Edward Gibbon

Selling certification is not education. Americans will pay handsomely for a flashy label without the slightest concern for the quality of what it's on, and the less effort required, the better. Anyone can learn for free at the public library, or from the internet sources that Minerva will plunder. Why would any fool pay for that?

I recall that Summers wrote a piece not long ago on the need for fundamental change in American education, and in that he is quite right. I also recall that it was almost entirely platitudinous hogwash. But when you're out to make a buck flacking the "New, Improved" version of college, that's just the right pitch.

It is elitist and snobbish, to be considered elite. It smacks of entitlement, rather than true meritocracy based on the ability to do and accomplish.

I would rather see a Real List of Abilities: competencies and knowledge. The average high school student cannot name the allies and axis and the victors of WWII. OR give a simple explanation of 'Watergate'. Or add two improper fractions. Harvard graduates cannot explain the basis of the Four Seasons. Or how soap works.

More learning is done outside of school than inside school (even when a student).

The most important thing to learn in school, is how to learn. To learn discipline, apply oneself, and work to achieve goals.

Persistence and hard work can achieve anything.

Distracted students are the principle cause of low achievement in the West today: Video games, internet, Media, Txting, and Facebook.

If Western students spent the time playing video games instead doing Math and Science Problem solving, they would lead the world!

Student must study.....there is no substitute. There is no shortcut. Time must be committed. Self discipline is essential.

Learning is a Lifetime Endeavor, not just 4 years in college.

The Internet is the most powerful knowledge tool ever invented...don't just use it to ogle pornography.

Larry Summers?? Are you kidding?? One of the responsible for the financial crisis in 2008?? Wow... What a university this will be!!! More of the same... teaching students how to mastermind big scams!! Hooraaayyy!!!!

Science textbooks are generally awful, both written and chosen by professors to make themselves indispensable. Fortunately, there are many books that have been written to clarify the underlying concepts. The unavoidable problem is access to lab classes and real scientific work. For that reason, I doubt that Minerva will appeal to anyone interested in such fields. But, as a proportion of all college students, they are not many, and certainly not typical.

This project appears to be an attempt to export the same for-profit boom that created the likes of Kaplan and similar meaningless virtual institutions to the same foreigners who spend exorbitant sums to go to third-rate American boarding schools.

The OU does exactly what every other University in the UK does, just online, with more choice and more entrance routes.

If you want a "socialistic" model look to the Mechanics' Institutes, which offered evening classes to the adult working class to "address societal needs by incorporating fundamental scientific thinking and research into engineering solutions". They also provided free lectures and libraries.

The most famous Mechanics' Institute is now Birkbeck, University of London, which offers part time, on-site degrees, again with a variety of entrance routes (though no longer aimed solely at the adult working class).

I wish The Minerva Project well, but $20k per year seems extortionate. The OU offers Undergrad degrees for up to £5000pa, ~$8000 (for a 3 year full time degree, anywhere in the World, at 120 credits per year).

Whatever the merits of this initiatives it must given credit for applying creativity and innovation to university education. In the UK, this sector is still using an operating model that has not changed for centuries.

America proves itself again to be in the forefront of socio-political-economic-..(ok I think collectively, humanist) pioneers for building a conceptually-somewhat-sound, for-profit education institute. Looking forward to witness whether Minerva University manages to take off in the momentum-swing of large private fund-backers and the promise of premier faculty and management.

My opinion of this concept? It might be a little premature at this point in time, but I sort of foresee the expectation-return ratio on this venture to pop faster than a soap bubble resting on a pin. Granted, I agree that the student-loan debt situation in America today is a big, growing burden denting the prospects of the current generation, and for-profit institutions with a keen eye on the margin, might be able to keep education costs down and lower the cost of good tertiary education. It is this sole reason, to allow market forces to optimize the grossly daunting cost of college/university education for Americans and unshackle their minds from the chains of financial debt, that I think this idea is worth the try.

But I foresee quite a few hurdles, some teething, some fundamental, that Minerva needs to surmount before succeeding materially in their goals:-
-----
1) Faculty. Even if they put students on an unforgiving bell curve in their effort-participation grading system, the quality of the class can only be as good as the quality of their educators/faculty. Given that most faculty are academics that are mostly intrinsically motivated by research and studies, I'm not so sure whether they would find the for-profit setting (chasing the Minerva Prize, anyone?) to be a welcome change from the usual university setting.

2) Mode of education delivery. Internet-heavy educational pedagogy has always suffered drawbacks in the lack of interpersonal networking opportunities and the development of a socio-cultural identity that students can relate to (e.g. the bonding/association to bodies of people connected by alumni). I concede that there might not be a causal link between the development of social skills/identity and educational background/pedagogy and acknowledge that the Minerva model of physical relocation/colocation of classes seems to address this issue. However, in a very real sense, I would think the class of Minerva would have to deal with this difference from the other classes from the usual university route.

3) Expectation anxiety (not a technical/scholarly term). For a fledging university with no track record, all eyes will be on the achievements of the first batch of graduating classes. If the Minerva management mirrors entry requirements too closely to that of Ivy Leaguers, they will be indirectly giving their students enormous shoes to fill, as this will form a basis of comparison, and expectation, between the achievements of Minerva versus the current elite universities. Other than the obvious problem of convincing high-calibre prospective students to test out this new pedagogical model, with all the stress and scrutiny, I'm not too optimistic that the high tacit expectation/goals set by the institute's management would yield a positive relationship with achievements in student academics and creativity.

4) Conflict of interest. I reckon the biggest (and most important) difference between the current for-profit education organizations and the usual university model is that, technically, for-profit entities have distinct and current ownerships by private investors, while non-profit universities are more or less institutions of public character, with donations/prizes/profits contributed to an endowment fund to benefit the universities students for posterity. A conflict of interest may arise when for example, students are required to do academic analyses/papers that may portray the institute's private owners in a bad light. Unless there is some creative clause within the constitutional documents of Minerva such that its shareholders are estopped from any input, the objectivity and credibility of the work of its class and faculty will be compromised in some extent.
-----

I think that beyond putting out strong promotion and awareness of the venture, Minerva should avoid pandering to 'want' market forces by promising their prospective students by promising to be a future elite, when the efficacy and effectiveness of their avant-garde model of learning has yet to be tested or yield results. Rather, they should try to convince future students, with solid reasoning backed by studies or research, that their learning model would develop them as well as, and even beyond those of elite universities. A de-focus on hard grade-based admission requirements, with more weight placed in achievements in areas such as community service track record, artistic work, athletic prowess and cultural background would benefit the student body in the representation of diverse points of view and encourage expansive thinking.

What cost? As a young renting student with no assets and a suitcase of belongings, it costs almost nothing to move (within the EU at least).

For more general travel, there are health insurance costs, VISA costs, and a 2 long flights each year. Still, for low-cost-of-living host countries, that could be far cheaper for Americans than staying on an American campus.

As an rice-eater (no money for food) and cyclist (no money for transport) with recent experience living in the US, Germany, Belarus, England and Scotland, I know that it can be done on a shoestring.